For those who might have thought a four-page paper to be a bit much (although some submissions weighed in at under a page), the committee is offering an alternative. Starting at 12:01 am Tuesday morning Eastern time, and continuing for 27 hours (through midnight Pacific time Tuesday night), the committee will be collecting inputs via Twitter. “What are your best ideas for creating a NASA human spaceflight program that is sustainable over the next several decades?” the committee is asking for responses on, requesting people use the hashtag #HumansinSpace. Those ideas will have to fit into just 126 characters or less: besides Twitter’s 140-character limit, the required hashtag itself takes up 14 characters.

As with the white papers, the committee notes the tweets will not be used as some kind of opinion poll because of the self-selected nature of the inputs. “However, the input is intended to help ensure that the committee hears about important issues from interested parties,” the committee states on the website about the Twitter initiative. So long as you can get those issues squeezed down to 126 characters or less.

My understanding is that the National Academies is just experimenting with social media, and the Committee on Human Spaceflight happens to be the effort the experiment is being done with.

Now, if the Committee on Human Spaceflight committee is at all serious about this, however, I just lost a LOT of respect for their effort. Arguing/considering policy in 126 characters for 27 hours is fantastically dumb. A thoroughly crappy way to get any kind of thoughtful assessment from the public. This is about sloganeering, not policy, or “important points”. If a point is important, this isn’t how you communicate it. (There, those last sentences would have barely fit!)

Now, many of the publicly submitted white papers were pretty crappy themselves, but at least they weren’t character-limited.

The invitation to twitter suggestions about sustainability is puzzling in itself. The issue of sustainability is a small piece of the statement of task for this committee. Most of that task is about motivation, goals, and value proposition for human spaceflight. The issue of sustainability is what comes after you figure out those other things.

“Arguing/considering policy in 126 characters for 27 hours is fantastically dumb. A thoroughly crappy way to get any kind of thoughtful assessment from the public.”

I understand your point, but consider that more characters and words about a crappy idea doesn’t make a crappy idea any better. But 126 characters of a good idea may be all that is needed.

For instance, the tweet that Curtis Quick (above) said he sent was rather succinct and to the point, and more characters and more words would have only reinforced what he said.

Think of it this way too – if you can’t describe your high-level idea in one sentence, then those that like the idea are unlikely to propagate your idea in the short conversations that they have with people.

Kennedy’s Moon challenge was part of a longer speech, but the heart of what he said could be boiled down to 165 characters (including punctuation):

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.”

Everything else he said was justification and budgetary details, but if you bought into that one sentence, then you’d be willing to discuss the rest.

Nope. 126 characters doesn’t make for a “thoughtful assessment”, though one may get points for succintness. That’s exactly right that you should be able to describe your high level idea in one sentence. That tweet could be the executive summary for the high-level idea. But without the high-level idea, it’s just a slogan.

“Kennedy’s Moon challenge was part of a longer speech, but the heart of what he said could be boiled down to 165 characters (including punctuation)”

Ah c’mon. That challenge didn’t come close to being a thoughtful assessment. The rationale for that was entirely implicit — to beat the Soviets. Obama’s “challenge” to visit a NEO probably used fewer words, and look at where that left us, because it didn’t come with any kind of thoughtful assessment. We still can’t quite figure out why he made that challenge. Besides, we’re not talking about “challenges”. We’re talking about “ideas for creating a NASA human spaceflight program that is sustainable over the next several decades.” How does Curtis Quick’s tweet argue that?

“It’s in plenty of books on the matter, not to mention the Congressional Record.”

Whoooeee, having Kennedy’s statement about a Moon challenge being in the library and the Congressional record makes it a “thoughtful assessment”? Get your head out of the 1960s (which is, I guess, your own antedeluvian lounge), and visit the 21st century. Just think of all such thoughtful assessments I can excavate from such documents!

Now, I certainly won’t argue that Kennedy’s statement wasn’t based on a thoughtful assessment. It probably was. But those particular words of his simply weren’t it. They were the slogan for it, or the executive summary for it. Maybe it’s those all words he didn’t utter at Rice, but stewed over in the White House with his staff that you’re referring to.

Which is why it’s a crappy way to get any kind of thoughtful assessment from the public. What they’re going to get is just high-level ideas. But if they’re at a level of desperation that they hope to get new high-level ideas, things are lookin’ bad for the esteemed committee. You’d think at this stage they’ve got the high level ideas, and are trying to articulate them convincingly.

“But it was something that the average taxpayer could understand, which I think is important.”

That’s exactly right. Slogans are important. But the Committee on Human Spaceflight is being tasked to come up with more than slogans. This twitter scheme might have been a good idea, before all the presentations, the white papers, and the year of deliberations. But now??

As to being something the average taxpayer can understand, that’s a small part of the picture. Because once the average taxpayer understands it, then they have to buy into it, and that’s when they’re looking for rationale. Hey, Newt put lunar colonies in terms that taxpayers could understand.

drumroll – “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon. And it will be American.” — /drumroll

The American taxpayer understood that pitch perfectly. Of course, the American taxpayer then decided, after some thoughtful assessment, that it was a load of crap, and Newt was widely derided.

“Which is why it’s a crappy way to get any kind of thoughtful assessment from the public. What they’re going to get is just high-level ideas.”

And what do you expect from the public? Highly detailed white papers?

I think you’re being a little too critical of this, especially since “thoughtful assessments” based on flawed ideas are no better than short statements of those same flawed ideas, but at least they waste less electrons and paper.

Look, if you can’t articulate a short statement that elicits a “tell me more” statement from people, then you’ve failed.

“Slogans are important. But the Committee on Human Spaceflight is being tasked to come up with more than slogans.”

You automatically think whatever is written in 126 characters is a slogan, but I don’t. Just because it’s a short statement doesn’t make it a slogan.

“The American taxpayer understood that pitch perfectly. Of course, the American taxpayer then decided, after some thoughtful assessment, that it was a load of crap, and Newt was widely derided.”

No, I think the majority of the public had already decides that Newt was not a serious contender, and because of that his proposition – no matter it’s merits – was ignored. If anything it shows that regardless the goal, the public still have to buy into it, and so far the public is not clamoring to spend lots of money on the Moon again. He might has well shortened his pitch to “Elect me, and I’ll waste your money going back to the Moon”.

“And what do you expect from the public? Highly detailed white papers?”

Nope. Hope you don’t. That’s not what I wanted. But actually the public submitted a lot of detailed white papers, and at least some were thoughtful assessments. In requesting white papers, the committee reached out to the public and asked for real thinking. Those who can’t supply real thinking, but can only think in slogans or tweets, ought to just keep quiet. At some level, that’s the sad thing about Twitter. It encourages crappy communication and thereby makes the communicator feel fulfilled.

“Look, if you can’t articulate a short statement that elicits a ‘tell me more’ statement from people, then you’ve failed.”

Failed at what? Failed at articulating something in a short statement? Yep, I’ll agree with that entirely. Kind of obvious, really. But that’s not what this is about. This is about giving the NAS committee something they can really sink their teeth into. If all you can supply is 126 characters, you’ve succeeded, perhaps, in supplying a slogan, which is not very useful. Maybe they can sink their gums into that and call it successful.

“Just because it’s a short statement doesn’t make it a slogan.”

But I think it does. A slogan is a short but memorable piece of text that advocates a plan. Slogans are important! But they’re not the plan. It is amazing how people confuse slogans with real plans. Mainly because whatever your slogan is, I can come up with a compelling slogan that rejects it. My counter slogan will sound good! A slogan isn’t a convincing argument. It’s a flag that you wave. It’s not the army that’s carrying it.

“Elect me, and I’ll waste your money going back to the Moon”.

Good slogan. Actually, you underestimate Newt Gingrich if you think he doesn’t have carefully tuned messages that would energize lots of people. He didn’t say what he said because he’s politically dumb. In fact, with his Moon-or-bust slogan, he had a lot of people cheering. Of course, those are the people who don’t work with numbers.

Let me say that in a tweety kind of wired, rah-rah space advocacy way, 126 characters are great. If that floats your boat, go for it. But if you want to argue something with anything approaching conviction, you’ll need a few more characters. As I said, if at this late stage in their deliberations, the NAC committee really needs tweets, they’re headed straight for failure.

“A slogan is a short but memorable piece of text that advocates a plan.”

From Wikipedia:

“A slogan is a memorable motto or phrase used in a political, commercial, religious, and other context as a repetitive expression of an idea or purpose.”

For me, I think of slogans as advertising, but that is not the same as a one sentence description of something.

“But they’re not the plan.”

Agreed, but the committee was only looking for ideas, not fully formed and detailed plans.

“Actually, you underestimate Newt Gingrich if you think he doesn’t have carefully tuned messages that would energize lots of people. He didn’t say what he said because he’s politically dumb. In fact, with his Moon-or-bust slogan, he had a lot of people cheering. Of course, those are the people who don’t work with numbers.”

I think by the end there you nullified what you said at the beginning, and you identified what the problem is with Newt – what he says sounds interesting, UNTIL you look at the details.

“But if you want to argue something with anything approaching conviction, you’ll need a few more characters.”

“I think by the end there you nullified what you said at the beginning, and you identified what the problem is with Newt – what he says sounds interesting, UNTIL you look at the details.”

I think you miss the point entirely.

What Gingrich said was a tweet. A slogany tweet. It sounded interesting. Until you look at the details. The plan is not the tweet. The plan is the details that represents thoughtful assessment. Exactly as I said, his tweet wasn’t a thoughtful assessment, and thoughtful assessment made the tweet bite the dust.

“but the committee was only looking for ideas, not fully formed and detailed plans.”

Again, point entirely missed. The committee, one year into their deliberations is NOT looking for tweety ideas. If they are, they’re crashing. The committee needs to be converging on fully formed rationale for the ideas they want to articulate.

Think about it. “All they were looking for is ideas.” NO! That’s a simplistic slogan in itself. Sort of a self-righteous one. That’s not all they are looking for by any stretch of the imagination, and that’s why asking for tweets at this advanced stage is a crappy idea.

Why don’t they ask for a WORD? Just one. One that will inspire and stimulate, and assure a sustainable program. C’mon. There must be a great word we should give them. Or maybe a letter? I’m proud to vote for “c”. That’ll set ‘em right. I need to send them a “c” right away. Bet they’ll be able to use it, and we’ll see it used throughout their report. Yay!

“What Gingrich said was a tweet. A slogany tweet. It sounded interesting.”

Only to Lunar-tics that pine for a massive taxpayer-funded government program to send a few people back to the Moon.

I don’t know about you, but I understood it when he said it, and rejected it for the same reasons I reject other Return To The Moon For Glory plans. And I didn’t even need a detailed 1,000 white paper to give me enough information.

My tweet was not designed to argue any point. Indeed, at so limited a number of characters it would take one far more eloquent than I to craft such a succinct argument. I merely wished to respond where I could to promote an idea I like. I have no allusions that my tweet would even be read much less spearhead a new direction for human spaceflight. I did however hope that my tweet would elicit the response on this blog that it has so far brought about. I am curious how may feel the same way.

Of course, I know that Windy feels differently. My assumption has always been that his bread is buttered by the space-industrial complex and so he is strongly motivated to argue for backward cost-plus money hungry programs to nowhere that promise the stars and but leave us forever earthbound. We would get more for our space dollars if we paid for a Hollywood sequel to Gravity, than Apollo on steroids.

DCSCA is not so one-dimensional as Windy, yet he takes pleasure in showering SpaceX with scorn at every opportunity. Mark my words, as soon as SpaceX orbits a crew, DCSCA will claim that SpaceX is not to be taken seriously until they land a crew on the Moon. Eventually DCSCA’s goal posts will move all the way to the surface of Mars itself.

In the past, NASA leadership and US taxpayer money was deemed necessary to ensure we could beat the Russians to the Moon. Perhaps government money and supervision was needed to make it happen. But, that was 50 years ago. We don’t need to do it the hard way anymore. We don’t need the government to build the rockets of the future based on the technology of the past. Industry is quite capable of building the launch vehicles we need. They are also capable of building the spacecraft we will need. We certainly do not need to fund this to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars just to have launchers and spacecraft that we could get for hundreds of millions instead. Let’s use the limited funds NASA receives to do great things, not build monuments to the past that cannot even afford to fly.

“I did however hope that my tweet would elicit the response on this blog that it has so far brought about. I am curious how may feel the same way.”

I liked it. I may write something different, or say it in a different way, but that’s the direction I think we should go.

“I have no allusions that my tweet would even be read much less spearhead a new direction for human spaceflight.”

Well I think that’s accurate, but then again, I think we all hope that by advocating for what we believe, that we can effect some degree of change over time. That’s certainly what I hope, otherwise I wouldn’t comment here and on other websites.

That’s a snotty remark. The Human Spaceflight Committee was mandated by Congress, which I suppose one could consider delusional, but they write the checks to buy down national goals, and if they need advice and encouragement in paying for their delusions, they should get it from experts. SpaceX is a hardware shop. They don’t make national goals, and the nation is certainly not under any obligation to pay for their own goals. We all respect good results, and if the Human Spaceflight Committee can come up with rationale that will convince Congress to continue to pay for human spaceflight, that’s a pretty damned good result. If SpaceX can make getting tons into orbit cheaper, then that’s also a pretty damned good result (for whatever we decide we need those tons for — the establishment of which is an entirely different result).

Feeding our country is a national goal. A committee to help us understand why that’s important, how it can best be achieved, and the value of nutrition would be hardly delusional. McDonalds is a food hardware shop. Making really cheap food. That capability can be seen as a good result too. But the latter doesn’t make the former.

“2001: A Space Odyssey ahows the path forward and is as good a baseline plan as any.”

Sounds good to me. How many trillion dollars would Discovery One cost? Pass the can. Maybe they’ll sell Jupiter t-shirts. Oh, we can let the Russians do it. They’ll eventually sell us seats on their Alexei Leonov.